claims Respondent s passive holding of the baylorclub.com domain name is evidence of bad faith because the domain name fails to resolve to any active website The Panel agrees See e.g Disney Enters Inc v Meyers FA 697818 Nat Arb Forum June

name The Respondent is making passive use of the disputed domain name and The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings In

for sale which constitutes a passive holding of the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Language of the proceeding In accordance with the Rules

domain name is inactive Passive holding of a disputed domain name incorporating a third party well-known mark does not normally amount to a bona fide use It was established even since the beginning of the UDRP that inaction / passive holding

Complainant asserts that passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith and that the other circumstances of Respondent behavior compel the conclusion that Respondent is acting in bad faith despite the fact that its webpage is

registration and use and/or passive holding by Respondent The Examiner finds that Respondent registered and used or passively held the disputed domain name in bad faith Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 DETERMINATION

constitute at best passive holding of the Domain Names Many UDRP panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith in light of the overall circumstances of the case see e.g Telstra Corporation Limited v

3.2 as indicia of bad faith passive holding In the light of a similar case concerning the passive holding of domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant MAZARS mark the Panel considers that the bad faith behavior of the Respondent results

disputed domain name However passive holding may still constitute use in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy if in the totality of the circumstances it is clear that the Respondents act of passive holding is in bad faith

and that the Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name The Complainant also argues that the Respondent s passive holding of the Domain Name satisfies the requirement that the Domain Name be used in bad faith by the Respondent as i the

contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Paragraph 3.2 The WIPO Overview 2.0 further stated The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting

have already considered that passive holding of a disputed domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel notes that in Telstra Corporation Limited

PANEL DECISION Asahi Group Holdings Ltd v David Whittle Case No DAU2014-0024 1 The Parties The Complainant is Asahi Group Holdings Ltd of Japan represented by Griffith Hack Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys Australia The Respondent is David

positive actions but includes passive holding of the disputed domain names as in this case B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions The Center received an informal email in Turkish 6 Discussion and Findings

Overview 2.0 paragraph 3.2 passive holding of a domain name may indicate bad faith in all the circumstances of a case The Respondent registered the third Domain Name relmd.net just days after his termination and the Complainant s registration of

Complainant contends that the passive holding of these disputed domain names are evidence of the Respondent s bad faith Although in some cases passive holding of a domain name may provide evidence of bad faith activity it is necessary in every case

with the Complainant Passive holding can still be considered as acting in bad faith The Complainant says the Respondent is notorious for registering hundreds of domain names which correspond to well-known third parties trademarks in the

followed by the Respondent s passive holding of such a parking site constitutes bad faith use and registration B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Under the Policy the Complainant

actively using the domains passive holding can still constitute use in bad faith See e.g Telstra Corp Ltd v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 Respondent s pattern of registering trademarked email domain names suggests

is considered a case of passive holding of the disputed domain name Prior UDRP decisions have ruled that passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith See e.g WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions Second